Opening 1NT with 5cM in a limited 1M system

[daveharty]

I wasn't sure where to post this one, apologies if it's in the wrong forum.

 

For purposes of this discussion, assume that your tendency when playing a standardish system (5cM, 15-17 NT, 1C=3+, etc.) is to freely open 1NT with a 5cM, if you judge the hand is otherwise suitable.

 

Now, assume you are playing a system where 1M is limited to something like 11-15, and also that you play a 1NT range that overlaps the limited range. How does this affect the likelihood that you might open 1NT with a 5cM? This could apply to Big ♣/Big ♦ systems, but I'm also interested in responses from people who have experience playing 2-way club systems like Swedish Club.

[akhare]

In context of a 16+ 1♣ opening, we have no qualms opening 1N (14-16) with a 5CM332 when in range.

[ulven]

I'm on TBW record for what I think is the right approach ;)

[nigel_k]

Including 5 card majors works better with a strong NT than a weak NT, regardless of whether 1M is limited.

[lalldonn]

I always open 1NT in range with 5332 hands. Opening 1NT is a very good thing for your results in general.

[Mbodell]

I always open 1NT in range with 5332 hands. Opening 1NT is a very good thing for your results in general.

 

This is my feeling too. I pretty close to always open 1NT with any in range 4333, 4432, 5332, 5m422, and 6m322 - regardless of if the nt range is 10-12, 10-13, 12-14, or 15-17. 1nt is just too awesome to miss!

[daveharty]

Just to be a bit more explicit about the last part of my question: if you are playing something like a two-way club system where weak NT type hands are wrapped into your 1C opener, are people still as liberal about bidding 1C with a 5cM? Or is it suddenly a different story in that particular case?

[awm]

If you are around minimum 1M opening strength it is much better to open 1M. You have basically what pd will play you for, and you can pass most NF responses. You will reach better partials and light games by opening 1M.

 

If you have more than a minimum 1M by about an ace, you run into some trouble. Your hand will become hard to show in some sequences and you may land in the wrong strain and/or level. While there are some work-arounds for this (Bart, Gazzilli, etc) they tend to help where opener has extra while costing when opener is min. Since a strong club (or strong diamond, or polish club) rules out most strong 1M opens, you probably don't want to play these. It follows that you probably want to open 1nt (or whatever you open on strong NT hands) despite the 5M, but when you have a weak no trump strength you want to open 1M (and not polish club or precision 1d or a weak 1nt).

[dake50]

I want opponents to kick in their 1NT defenses

as often as I can.

Don't even care that my partner won't cater

for my 5cM in our counters.

[chasetb]

I'm probably in the minority, but I've been beaten far too many times for my liking by opening a strong 1NT (Precision) when 1M would have done a LOT better. Of course, in Standard I am bidding 1NT (strong), I pretty much have to.

[Free]

Depends a lot on your NT range imo. If you're playing weak NT I'm much more inclined to open 1M so you're well positioned for competitive auctions. When playing strong NT (say 13+-16) I prefer opening 1NT. This way I can easily play semiforcing 1NT responses over 1M, and safely pass my balanced hands after 1M-1NT.

[jallerton]

Depends a lot on your NT range imo. If you're playing weak NT I'm much more inclined to open 1M so you're well positioned for competitive auctions. When playing strong NT (say 13+-16) I prefer opening 1NT. This way I can easily play semiforcing 1NT responses over 1M, and safely pass my balanced hands after 1M-1NT.

 

Is that all one needs for a "strong" NT these days?

[mikestar13]

I have to abstain on this one--it really depends on the overall system. In, for example, Revision Club, 1NT is 16-18(!), so the choice with a weaker balanced hand is between 1♦ showing a balanced hand among other possibilities, or 1M. In this context, 1M is clearly superior. In other big club/variable club contexts, YMMV. But in general, whether the 1M opening is limited or not, the stronger the NT range, the more likely 1NT with a 5 card major is to be right. Kaplan-Sheinwold refused to open a 12-14 NT with a 5 card major better than xxxxx. And while EK wasn't right about everything, he felt strongly about this, according to the KS system book..

[kayin801]

Maybe this is just because I remember when it's sucked, but I feel like every once in a while I've gotten a really bad MP score opening (14-16 or 10-12) 1NT with a 5 card major when the field was in 2M/3M and we had an unstopped suit or two and our 5-3 or 5-4 only took 5 tricks. I'm sure I've also gotten good MP scores when I've played in 1NT in my 5-3 fit. Not to mention the times we have no fit and 1NT is a great spot.

 

That said, I echo what a few others have said in that I love opening 1NT. Especially in the auction 1H-1S-1NT now partner knows our range and I don't have to rebid 2m on a non-suit when I'm out of range for my rebid.

[ulven]

...the choice with a weaker balanced hand is between 1♦ showing a balanced hand among other possibilities, or 1M. In this context, 1M is clearly superior.

 

I'm not convinced.

[aguahombre]

That said, I echo what a few others have said in that I love opening 1NT. Especially in the auction 1H-1S-1NT now partner knows our range and I don't have to rebid 2m on a non-suit when I'm out of range for my rebid.

Warped person that I am, an interesting thought came. For those with 12-14 NT, partner would indeed know the range in the auction 1H-1S-1NT. The split range is 10/11 OR 15.

[Zelandakh]

In my system with limited openers (up to 17) it is systemic always to open 1NT with 5M332 shape. Indeed there is no provision to show such a hand after a 1M opening. I think that the benefits of knowing that 1M is unbalanced outweigh the potential plusses when 2M is right. If I included provision for 5332 hands within the 1M structure (ie giving a choice of openings) then I would be more inclined to open 1M since the benefits from knowing opener is unbalanced are gone.

[the hog]

1NT works equally well in a limited opening system as it does in an unlimited system. A balanced hand should be treated as one.

[han]

1NT works equally well in a limited opening system as it does in an unlimited system.

 

I think everybody agrees with that. I think everybody also agrees that a limited 1M works better than an unlimited 1M. Therefore it seems obvious that opening 1M is more appealing in a limited system than in an unlimited system.

 

I would still open 1NT pretty much all the time fwiw.

[glen]

... I think everybody also agrees that a limited 1M works better than an unlimited 1M ...

Fantunes disagrees

[semeai]

I think everybody also agrees that a limited 1M works better than an unlimited 1M.

Fantunes disagrees

 

I'm pretty sure Han meant when you make the bid itself, not the whole system that will necessarily surround it.

 

That said, Fantunes 1-level openings are themselves "limited" in a way, since they don't include the weakest end of the spectrum, which are the most common hands for a standard 1-level opening.

 

If we believe, as seems quite reasonable, that more definition in a particular bid is better for hands you then actually make the bid on, we'd have that a precision 1M opening > standard 1M opening, and Fantunes 1M opening > standard 1M opening, but precision 1M opening and Fantunes 1M opening are incomparable by this criterion since Fantunes leaves out the weakest hands and precision leaves out the strong hands. This ignores the effect on the rest of the system, of course, and so is not a claim that standard is a worse system.

 

[Okay, Fantunes 1M opening contains very strong hands not in a standard 1M opening, so technically they're incomparable by the reasoning above.]

[daveharty]

1NT works equally well in a limited opening system as it does in an unlimited system. A balanced hand should be treated as one.

So if you were playing (say) a Swedish Club with a 14-16 NT and you picked up ♠QTxxx ♥AJ ♦KTx ♣QTx, you would open 1♣ planning to show a balanced 11-13? Or is this approach so vulnerable to preemption and losing the spade suit that you would start with 1♠? This is what I'm really curious about. My inclination is the same as yours seems to be, namely to convey the "essential nature" of any given hand regardless of whether it has a 5cM, but I don't have enough experience playing this type of system to know whether it's right in the long run to do this. One of the oft-cited reasons for opening 1NT as often as possible is its preemptive effect, but obviously if you have to start with 1♣ to show a weak-NT type of hand, that's out the window.

[lalldonn]

I have been opening 1NT on all 5332 hands for probably a decade, except with one partner who asked me not to (and he has changed his mind since then). Yes, there are definitely times you lose out by missing a major suit fit. However you gain so much by hiding your shape and by preempting the opponents (it's definitely more preemptive than opening a major even though it doesn't take up so much space, since they can't make a takeout double, overcall 1S, overcall 1NT, overcall 2C...) The thing with people who open the major is they don't tend to notice most of the times opening 1NT would have worked better. It goes 1S p 2S p p X on the 1444 7 count and the opponents make three of something instead of 1NT p p p making on the wrong lead. It goes 1H 1S p 2C p p p instead of 1NT p p p which could go down on a club lead but makes on the spade lead. It goes 1H 2S p p p instead of 1NT 2S 2NT p 3C p p p etc. In all these cases, if you had opened the major it probably would just look like a normal result. It wouldn't even occur to you that you made your opponents' lives really easy.

 

There are other factors too. If you open 1NT it often goes p p something and you can bid your major now. But if you open the major try to stop in 1NT if that's right. And you can design the rest of your system after 1M better if a certain balanced range is eliminated. But really the main reason I do it is the first paragraph. Hiding your hand plus preempting the opponents works so well in practice, and getting to the wrong strain is random anyway. It's far from being a close decision. Opening 1NT has been a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge win for me in the long run no matter what the range.

[daveharty]

I agree with everything lalldonn wrote, but I'm still a little in the dark about what to do in the specific case I mentioned: playing a system where 1♣ is either any 17+ or 11-13 balanced, 1NT is 14-16, and you pick up a 5332 hand with a 5cM in the 11-13 range. Is this type of hand best opened 1♣ with the plan of showing a balanced 11-13 next time around, thus guaranteeing that your 1M openings are unbalanced, or is it better to open 1M, because the preemptive effect of bidding 1NT is no longer valid when you need to do a two-step to show the weak NT type hand? Obviously, with a 14-16 5332 hand, I would just open 1NT; my own (admittedly limited) experience has been the same as that of those who claim it is a big winner in the long run. But I'm just not sure how to balance the positives of treating the slightly weaker hand as a NT hand (describes the essential nature of the hand, possibly conceals the major from the defense, 5cM openings become unbalanced and thus more useful) with the negative (opening 1♣ with such hands is obviously not very preemptive, and a 5-3 major suit fit could more easily be lost in competition).

 

Maybe this is an argument not to play a two-way club system...

[MickyB]

1N [14-16] shows your strength better than 1M [11-16]. 1C [assumed to be 11-13] doesn't have this advantage, because if you open 1M partner will start with the assumption that you are minimum anyway.

 

1N (2H) P (P); 2S is a reasonable way to bid a 5233. 1C (2H) P (P); 2S obviously isn't an option on the equivalent 11-13 NT.

 

These reasons tip the balance for me. I could be persuaded to open 1C with five hearts if it improved our auctions after a 1H opening, but giving up opening 1S on a weak NT with five spades is quite a loss IMO.